If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!

WHY DID THE FOUNDERS INSIST ON “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”?

by Sharon Rondeau

(Jan. 27, 2019) — On Friday evening, Carl Gallups hosted Obama birth certificate lead investigator Mike Zullo on his “Freedom Friday” show to discuss presidential eligibility in the context of the “natural born Citizen” clause in Article II of the U.S. Constitution.

Under the authority of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO), Zullo conducted a 5+-year criminal investigation into the “long-form” birth certificate image posted at whitehouse.gov on April 27, 2011 said to be a scan of a certified copy of Barack Obama’s original birth certificate held by the Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH).

In the first of what would be three press conferences over the course of the probe, on March 1, 2012, Zullo announced that probable cause was found to believe that the image is a “computer-generated forgery.” Obama’s purported Selective Service registration form was also found to be problematic, Zullo said at the same time.

The focus of the show on the “natural born Citizen” requirement began with California U.S. Senator Kamala Harris, who declared herself a presidential candidate last Monday and plans to hold her first official event Sunday in Oakland, where she was born in 1964.

Her parents, however, were likely not U.S. citizens at the time of her birth, a situation similar to that of former Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, whose presidential eligibility was questioned by some in 2016.

On Friday Zullo contended that the 14th Amendment, often cited as justification for anyone born in the U.S. to run for president based on his or her being a “citizen,” does not encompass the higher standard of “natural born Citizen,” a “restriction” he said Founding Father John Jay urged Continental Congress president George Washington to include in the Constitution in a letter written in New York in July 1787.

In his letter, Jay expressed a concern that foreign influence could creep into the office of the nation’s chief executive. He therefore suggested that the president and commander-in-chief be limited to none “but a natural born Citizen,” with an emphasis on the word “born,” according to the National Archives. “Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen,” Jay wrote in his second paragraph on July 25, 1787.

Zullo included the fact that the understanding of citizenship has changed over the decades and continues to evolve, in part due to passage of the 14th Amendment. In response, Gallups raised the issue of an “anchor baby,” born in the U.S. to non-citizens, being considered eligible for president and the ramifications of such a candidate’s allegiance.

Between 2003 and 2008, Gallups said, various members of Congress introduced bills to change the “natural born Citizen” requirement. None was passed.

At 1:12:00, Zullo suggested that if President Trump nominates another U.S. Supreme Court justice who is confirmed, that person will be a “strict” interpreter of the Constitution who might participate in eventually issuing an opinion on the meaning of “natural born Citizen.”

At approximately the 1:14:00 mark, Gallups returned to the Obama birth certificate, which he said is “an absolute fabrication” with “five federal crimes attached to the building” of it. Gallups reminded his audience that Zullo has suggested that the CIA was involved in generating the image for public consumption.

The mainstream media has refused to report on Zullo’s investigation, whose conclusions on the birth certificate were corroborated by two outside forensic analysts, Zullo revealed at the final presser on December 15, 2016.

Reiterating Zullo’s appearance on his show in November, Gallups said that a briefing on the birth certificate occurred with highly-placed individuals in Washington, DC with “direct, direct, direct connections to the White House.”

New on Friday was Gallups’s revelation that he and Zullo have been approached by documentarians wishing to write a book or produce a movie on the investigation and its findings. “Spill it before the nation,” Gallups urged Zullo, although the latter declined to comment other than to say it is a “collaborative effort” and “It’s in the early stages; I don’t really want to speak too much to it.”

“But I will tell you that I really do believe that this issue is going to come up again,” Zullo continued. “I can’t tell you when, but I know. It is still out there; it is still talked about; the media still runs their propaganda psy-ops campaign with that birth certificate….That fraudulent document was the vehicle to put someone in the White House whose allegiances were somewhere else; I think that’s very easy for everyone to see…These issues are going to have to be resolved at some point in time.”

Sharon Rondeau has operated The Post & Email since April 2010, focusing on the Obama birth certificate investigation and other government corruption news. She has reported prolifically on constitutional violations within Tennessee’s prison and judicial systems.

On the subject of Islam and Sharia Law, Islam and Sharia Law are inextricable. There is no Islam if there is no Sharia Law and vice versa. Because of this Islam/Sharia Law is “Repugnant to the U.S. Constitution” and is NOT protected by it. Way back in 1803, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Marbury v Madison ruled that “ANY LAW that is repugnant to the U.S. Constitution is null and void”. Sharia Law is a set of laws that ARE indeed, “Repugnant to the U.S. Constitution”. Several Courts in the US have allowed Sharia creep into their courtrooms. Many banks have engaged in Sharia Financing. Many restaurants are offering Halal foods. Michigan and several other States are aggregating Muslims and they in turn are electing Islamic Representatives and their beliefs in honor killing, female mutilation, sharia financing, halal foods and other practices of Islam/Sharia Law, to our congress and presidency. Islam is NOT a religion. It is a system of tyranny that has control of one’s whole life. It is therefore in derogation of the Constitutional concepts of Life,Liberty,Freedom,Pursuit of Happiness and the guarantee of a “Republican form of Government”. Islam is anathema to freedom. The Q’uran does not even recognize Freedom of religion for non-muslims. Thomas Jefferson and other founders warned us about the dangers of Islam as did honorary American Winston Churchill, whose Mother was an American. Churchill said ” Islam in a man is like rabies in a dog”.

Hello James: I am well aware of the political ideology of Islam and its Sharia Law and its lack of separation of religious beliefs from the state’s government and laws being in direct conflict with our Constitution. I have studied at various times all the religions of the world. I have read the Quran. So I know the threat of Sharia Law and other aspects of Islam such as Taqiyya. See my webpage about Islam: http://www.kerchner.com/islam/books.htm

Hello ThinkWell: Thanks for the research into that point in your comment posting and the correction.

thinkwell Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 7:34 PM

Hello CDR Kerchner,

I went looking for where I read that Kamala’s mother had dabbled in islam after her divorce and could not find it again. After several hours of researching many other sources I could find none to corroborate this notion. I apologize to you and the readers of the Post & Email for propagating an unsubstantiated rumor from an anonymous source on the internet.

It seems her mother, Shyamala Gopalan, was a Tamil Brahmin Hindu who exposed her daughter to both Hindu and Baptist beliefs (her Jamaican father is or was Baptist). Kamala’s mother was a researcher at Jewish General Hospital in Quebec for many years and Kamala’s husband is Jewish, so it is unlikely that her mother ever took a serious interest in islam other than in defense of the civil rights of moslems. Kamala herself has strongly defended islam several times in the past. Perhaps this does not qualify her as an islamophile, but she certainly seems to turn a blind eye to the uniquely oppressive dark side of islam.

Kamala’s nominal faith of record is Baptist, but that is probably just for political expediency. Her actions brand her as a progressive secularist.

James Carter Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 5:59 PM

CDR Kerchner (Ret) wrote: “There is no religious test and there should not be in our Constitution,”

Maybe it’s time for one.

Anyone whose religion embodies legal precepts which are mutually exclusive with our Constitution, as Islam is via Shari Law, should not be allowed to even seek any public office, much less the highest public office.

To ThinkWell: In the last paragraph of your comment you state about Kamala Harris, “… she was raised in Canada by a radical leftist muslim single mother. She is just like aka obama, a fake American citizen of the world.” It has been alleged that Obama was still secretly a Muslim in belief. And his actions upon election showed his sympathies to the Muslim Brotherhood via his activities in Egypt. I know that Kamala Harris was raised in Canada. But, what is your proof or evidence that her mother was a Muslim? The vast majority of Tamil area of India where Kamala’s mother was allegedly from are Hindu, although there are also Muslims there. Just curious to learn where you obtained the information that Kamala’s mother was Muslim. Does anyone know if Kamala belongs to any church, mosque, temple, synagogue anywhere? I have not seen any information relating to her religious affiliations, if any. But if Kamala is another secret Muslim like Obama was with an affinity for the Muslim Brotherhood (a terrorist organization per the Egyptian President), that would not be good. There is no religious test and there should not be in our Constitution, but in the interest of transparency for the voters those facts like any other should be available to the voters. So, where did you get the information that Kamala’s mother was a Muslim?

Gary Wilmott Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 4:02 AM

Terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki was born in the United States to legal resident Yemeni citizen parents. Kamala Harris was born in the United States to an Indian citizen mother and a Jamaican citizen father. What’s the difference? Not much really. Both clearly are not Natural Born American Citizens. Both were born with divided allegiances. Harris however has divided allegiances with three countries. The terrorist al-Awlaki just two.

“Between 2003 and 2008, Gallups said, various members of Congress introduced bills to change the <> requirement. None was passed.” – They tried because they DID know what the Founders (and Low of Nations) meant: born to citizen parent on the soil. Knowing it they did not like it and tried it to change! Guess why?! And yet the slip of their pen in the 2008 Sen Res. 511 exposed the meaning of the Law of Nation against their will as though exposing their subconsciousness.

The “Natural Born” is NOT in a grey zone. It was pushed into the grey zone via Overton Window technology http://judeochristianamerica.org/OvertonWindow/ – a deceit in order to deflect attention from the unimaginable incivility and lawlessness of the 2008-2016 imposture.

“At 1:12:00, Zullo suggested that if President Trump nominates another U.S. Supreme Court justice who is confirmed, that person will be a <> interpreter of the Constitution who might participate in eventually issuing an opinion on the meaning of <>.”

Sorry, Mr. Zullo: it’s a deflection too. The Court may be only the last resort, when conflicting parties file the case! First it must be PARTIES, or the Congress, or the President which raise and expose this crime “too big to acknowledge” (in this rotten beacon of humanity). It does not require any future hypothetical new judge. It does require the activity of individuals and parties set up to never tire and never stop pursuing the justice and the last chance of salvation of this fallen nation. As Vladimir Bukovsky brilliantly wrote, “It’s worse than a conspiracy – it’s consensus” (of provocateurs and ignoramuses). Break, BREAK this consensus – or otherwise we all doomed.

Robert Laity Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 1:26 AM

I MUST Reiterate! The term of art “Natural-Born Citizen” has ALREADY been defined by the U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v Happersett and reaffirmed in no less then (5) other cases. They Unanimously agreed that “Those born in the United States to parents who are U.S. Citizens themselves are Natural Born Citizens”. The Court went on to say that to this fact there “is NO Doubt”. The court also said that ” some people say that one is an NBC if born in the US without regard to the citizenship of the parents..to this later group, we say there IS DOUBT”. As I said this understanding was agreed upon unanimously (9-0).

The founders and even most politicians up through the first three fourths of the twentieth century would be aghast at the concept of anchor babies. Kamala Harris, who was born in Oakland to foreign citizen students, is only improperly considered a citizen at birth because of the perversion of modern courts and politicians in treating the Constitution as a “living document” so that they can interpret it however they please. This anchor baby nonsense all started with Justice William J. Brennan’s footnote in Plyler v. Doe in 1982 and was pushed into high-gear USA-destruct-mode by the evil Ted Kennedy.

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. […]

Consider the following two unassailable points.

1) The text of Section 1 clearly states that it only applies to residents of a state. Illegal invaders or other temporary visitors and their spawn have no legal permanent residence in any state. They are trespassing aliens or are tourists, students, etc. whose legal permanent residence is in an alien land, not one of our states.

2) The subject of Section 1 is citizenship, so when considering jurisdiction, only political jurisdiction is relevant. The political jurisdiction of alien invaders, tourists, students and other temporary visitors and any spawn they might happen to drop is their home country. That is where they vote, and where they are citizens. The fact that they are subject to local criminal jurisdiction is irrelevant to questions of citizenship.

By the correct, originalist interpretation of the 14th Amendment, Kamala Harris should not be a citizen at all. On top of that, she was raised in Canada by a radical leftist muslim single mother. She is just like aka obama, a fake American citizen of the world.

thinkwell Monday, January 28, 2019 at 6:29 PM

Thank you for your kind words, CDR Kerchner. Alas, I am afraid that the duplicitous leftists and globalists have infiltrated our education system and the media to the point where very few of the recent generations of Americans have even the slightest clue what a natural born Citizen is and why the founders insisted that presidents must be one. For most all leftists the ends justify almost any means, so even if some were to become aware of the true meaning of this key Constitutional requirement, few to none would care.

I know of no law stopping anyone from running for president, but the states are supposed to keep ineligible candidates off the ballot and the electoral college and Congress are supposed to block ineligible winners if it gets that far. Unfortunately, even our so-called conservative politicians have proven themselves to be either too ignorant or too cowardly to speak out. Lawsuits have also proven ineffective because so many judges are activist leftists hacks and the SCOTUS has repeatedly declined to step up to the plate.

It is so sad that our great republic has fallen so far into a pit of indifference, ignorance or active anti-Americanism. The only remaining check to ineligible candidates seems to be the ballot box. For this reason we must continue to educate as many Americans as possible as to the true meaning and purpose of the natural born Citizen eligibility requirement for presidents. I salute you, Mrs. Rondeau and the many other patriots on this website for ongoing efforts in this regard.

To ThinkWell: Very good logic and analysis and argument for the truth and reality of who is a “natural born Citizen” of the United States in your comment. Well put. It makes a well stated easy to share comment to counteract the conflated logical fallacies that the Obots and Hobts and others put out there to confuse the public. I shared what you wrote here on my Facebook page. https://www.facebook.com/charles.kerchner CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)

thinkwell Monday, January 28, 2019 at 3:56 PM

The Constitution was very deliberately written by articulate people in plain language to be easily understood by every sovereign citizen of the land. “Born citizen” is not a technical term, rather it is a plain, unambiguous noun (citizen) modified and limited by an equally plain, unambiguous adjective (born). To ordinary common people using ordinary common sense, the meaning of the combination is clear and obvious on its face, i.e., those who are citizens at birth.

Some born citizens owe their citizenship to a law or statute (without which they might not be a citizen at all). These are the statutory born citizens who have essentially been naturalized at birth by law.

Other born citizens require no law and are citizens by their inherent nature at birth because no other outcome is possible, i.e., one born in the USA to a USA citizen mother and USA citizen father cannot be anything but a USA citizen. This is the natural, obvious, exclusive outcome of such a combination of circumstances.

Note that if a society were completely closed to outside immigration, after a few generations, natural born Citizens would be the only type of citizen that could exist. All other types of citizens are unnatural creations of law and would die out.

The presidency is different than the other branches of government because all of its considerable power (which includes commanding our military might) is bestowed upon a single individual. This is the reason the founders wanted to ensure that our president be one hundred percent red-blooded American through and through. He (or she) must have a life-long natural allegiance to the USA and only the USA.

Natural allegiance springs primarily from three sources, one’s father, one’s mother and where one is born and raised. The founders wanted to protect our nation by ensuring that our president have no lingering allegiance to anywhere but the USA, thus it makes sense that they would want all three sources of allegiance to be of the USA for our presidents.

Imagine an anchor baby born in the USA to alien parents, but then immediately spirited away to an alien land to be raised in an alien culture. Such a person would essentially be a foreigner and is precisely the type of person whom the founders were trying to exclude from the presidency.

This is almost exactly the situation with Kamala Harris, who was born in the USA, but then spirited away as young child to be raised in a foreign land by a mother with foreign notions and little allegiance to the USA. Unless one is trying to deliberately destroy the USA, this hybrid foreigner (Harris) is not the type of person who should ever be allowed to become president.

JOHN GUARNERI Monday, January 28, 2019 at 10:07 AM

We know the problem, but where is the Solutions !!

Bob68 Sunday, January 27, 2019 at 10:19 PM

I remember Carl Gallups saying he watched and heard Hillary say during the 2008 Democrat primary that she had proof Obama was not eligible and she was going to show that proof. I believe Carl,….but did anyone else actually see this, and is there video available anywhere?

I believe it was just a few days after this that Hillary was in a meeting with Obama and others and there it was decided she would drop out and let Obama win. I think Hillary was offered the Secretary of State job in Barry’s regime and the presidency after Obama’s usurpation in order to be the continued cover for the ineligible, identity fraud con-artist Obama and the massive corruption he was being installed to make happen, (and to cover for her own corruption)….Likely Hillary was also very aware of what would be offered if she refused to step aside and let the race-protected perfect candidate for maximum destruction of our nation have the presidency. Hillary’s failure and Trump “the birther” being elected is what is driving the panicked attempts to get Trump out of office..

4. As a state-licensed attorney, she, above all other Americans, should know better and be held to the highest standard to acknowledge and yield professionally to the default uncontestable originalist Constitutional meaning of “natural born [US] Citizen” = naturally born on US soil to natural born or duly naturalized US citizen-parents; any standard below this singular uncontestable natural standard requires man-made laws, lies, opinions or Congressional resolutions to make her appear “eligible” in spite of her inescapable undeniable INTERNALIZED FOREIGN SYMPATHIES!https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jay